Martin, somewhere in a quick scan of posts this morning (no time to carefully read posts until evening), you mentioned that you check the sidereal ascendant lord before reading a chart. If you have time, I'd like to see you elaborate on that point under a new topic heading ("The Ascendant Lord"...or whatever) on the new Sidereal forum Deb just set up.

Having a few concrete examples would help others to understand how we use sidereal rulers.

What I meant was that I always check the client's physical appearance, and sometimes other things (such as major character traits and interests, medical history, etc), against the ascendant in order to verify the time of birth. A planet in the first house generally takes precedence over the ruler; but often enough, there is no such planet, and we have to rely on the ruler, which of course is zodiac-dependent.

I should say that I use a model based on the Indian (Ayurvedic) three-humour system rather than the Galenic four humours, as I am more familiar with the former. This is not the time or the place to describe the principles in detail, but I have found that the planet dominating the ascendant consistently describes the native. When there is no planet in the first house muddying the waters, there is generally no difficulty in distinguishing between Pisces and Aries rising, Aries and Taurus rising, etc.

Anyone else doing this? I should mention that I use only the seven classical rulers.

I have not worked with the humours, but I have found the sidereal ascendant lord to be an extremely important "magnetic" point for the chart. That is, if any planet conjoins the ascendant lord or closely aspects it, that planet will be a key to the person's psychology and often life direction. Also, of course, any planet closely aspecting the ascendant will affect the appearance and constitution.

I should say that I use a model based on the Indian (Ayurvedic) three-humour system rather than the Galenic four humours, as I am more familiar with the former. This is not the time or the place to describe the principles in detail, but I have found that the planet dominating the ascendant consistently describes the native. When there is no planet in the first house muddying the waters, there is generally no difficulty in distinguishing between Pisces and Aries rising, Aries and Taurus rising, etc.

Anyone else doing this? I should mention that I use only the seven classical rulers.

Can you elaborate on this more? Particularly the three humour system. I'm completely ignorant of it. Perhaps a simple example?

Are there source texts you would recommend, Martin? I'd like to see two or three examples as well. I have Svoboda's Your Ayruvedic Constitution and Lad's Ayurveda, The Science of Self-Healing._________________http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

I should say right away that I am not in any way an expert in āyurveda (and not really in a position to recommend any particular books, Therese). And āyurveda is not absolutely essential to what I do; I just find it a good thinking tool. I should also state that what I know about this I learnt from a good friend and fellow sidereal astrologer, so it isn't my own finding, and I would prefer for him to present it in detail.

The three humours or doṣas (which are quite similar to Sheldon's somatotypes, if anyone is still familiar with those) are bile (pitta), wind (vāta) and phlegm (kapha). These combine neatly into seven basic types which can be made to correspond to the seven planets according to the dominant humour/s: bile, wind, phlegm, bile+wind, bile+phlegm, wind+phlegm, and finally bile+wind+phlegm (an equal mix of all three, obviously Mercury -- though rarely seen in real life).

A possible advantage of viewing the planetary types through this lens is that it enables one to see how they form a sort of continuum, rather than just being seven disparate and somewhat arbitrary basic patterns. This is especially important because people change over time. Thus, a lunar native (in āyurvedic terms, a wind+phlegm type) will eventually become either more jovial (if the phlegm element is more pronounced) or more saturnine (if the wind element predominates).

One example: I once had a student who was an absolutely classical example of the latter type. She was quite thin, extremely reserved, spoke in a near-whisper, and her hair was very tightly curled (for a Caucasian) -- all Saturn/wind traits -- but she had very large eyes and an ample bosom, both of which seemed almost oversized in relation to the rest of her physique. I told an astrologer friend who had met her: 'I'll bet you anything you like that she has Cancer rising, or else the Moon in the first house.' Some months later the lady in question actually asked me to do her chart and gave me her birth details. She had sidereal Cancer rising with the Moon right on the ascendant.

One example: I once had a student who was an absolutely classical example of the latter type. She was quite thin, extremely reserved, spoke in a near-whisper, and her hair was very tightly curled (for a Caucasian) -- all Saturn/wind traits -- but she had very large eyes and an ample bosom, both of which seemed almost oversized in relation to the rest of her physique. I told an astrologer friend who had met her: 'I'll bet you anything you like that she has Cancer rising, or else the Moon in the first house.' Some months later the lady in question actually asked me to do her chart and gave me her birth details. She had sidereal Cancer rising with the Moon right on the ascendant.

I don't know about big eyes, although Cows have big eyes and are known big milk producers. I recall a few Tropical Astrologers stating ample bosoms and a strong Cancer emphasis are linked.

Do you know what the thinking is/was re-big eyes and the source of it. I'm wondering if crabs have big eyes or people's eyes are bigger in June/July or mothers eyes expand when breast feeeding or our eyes expand when we look at the Moon or something else perhaps ?

I would have thought the association with the luminaries lies behind this. The Sun and Moon are both associated with the eyes and eyesight. For the Moon, perhaps the Taurean exaltation is relevant too, with this idea of being 'cow-eyed'. Traditional texts also describe solar types as having large bulging eyes, or when there is affliction there can be eye problems; or more emphasis on the Sun can point to one eye protruding more than another.

I would have thought the association with the luminaries lies behind this.

Absolutely. Solar and lunar types tend to have the most prominent eyes, the lunar being more moist and the solar more radiant. Venus often gives a beautiful shape; Mars smallish eyes with a sharp, piercing look; Saturn dull and deep-set eyes; etc.

An idea which has some currency perhaps in more recent time is big eyes and Pisceans. Again why? , could be Jupiter as a ruler/co-ruler and its expansive functions I suppose.

The luminaries are the lights of the sky, some even claimed they were the eyes of god. That sun is the eye of god by day and the moon the eye of god by night.

I've never heard of the association with big eyes and Pisces though, but I would imagine that it's a modern take on it and probably to do with the stereotypical modern image of Pisces as being doe eyed and sensitive and barely able to move for all the crystals and incense surrounding them. Or perhaps they're just drunk.

The luminaries are the lights of the sky, some even claimed they were the eyes of god. That sun is the eye of god by day and the moon the eye of god by night.

Yes. Homologizing the eyes with the lights by which we see is not very strange.

Quote:

I've never heard of the association with big eyes and Pisces though, but I would imagine that it's a modern take on it and probably to do with the stereotypical modern image of Pisces as being doe eyed and sensitive and barely able to move for all the crystals and incense surrounding them. Or perhaps they're just drunk.

Nixx wrote:

Also Cancer/Leo in the tropical Zodiac now and both Zodiacs when they merged into this ''divine (semantic) synchroncity'' , correspond to the days being lighter.

... unless you live in Australia. Or Botswana. Or Argentina. You get my drift...

I've never heard of the association with big eyes and Pisces though, but I would imagine that it's a modern take on it and probably to do with the stereotypical modern image of Pisces as being doe eyed and sensitive and barely able to move for all the crystals and incense surrounding them. Or perhaps they're just drunk.

Depends what you mean by stereotypical and modern. When you analyse 20th century Tropical astrology schemas you sometimes get the impression the shared ground is the lack of.

Big eyes are seen as a positive looks wise and Pisceans tend to have this pretty boy and girl reputation going by some texts, so there may be another connection here.

I would say through a Psychological Lens as Pisces (Tropical) is a Water, therefore Rational sign, it is less likely to get involved in more ''New Age'' notions and potions such as crystals, incense and various ambient projected into talismans than the Fire/Air irrational 'away with the fairies' population. I'm a Pisces and when I go into houses with crystals and incense my initial response is to think about how to blow it up or murder the inhabitants. If you smoke quality fags, as I do, incense ruins the experience as do herbal teas and other manifestations of quasi hippy gumbo.

Do eyes expand when drunk?. If so then again bringing in Psychological Astrology the alcoholic of the Zodiac appears to be for this crowd Sagittarius, another Jupiter ruled sign. Something to do with the Liver and excess. I've personally known what you might call 5 hard core alcoholics in my life 3 had Moon in Sag and one Sun in Sag (Tropical), not the same one, and I don't recall their eyes being consistenty large, perhaps a bit red or bloodshot.

I think we have hit on the likely logical source being tied into the Thema Mundi, with the lights being the 2 big god like fellows who shine their torches on us dabbling monkeys over 24 hrs , with the eye sight or shape seeming to have followed in time in various texts. So one then wonders if those born under a fuller moon will have even bigger eyes ?

As this is the Sidereal forum we should ask the Sideralists gathered here which Sign for them tends to overdo the vino and why?

Also Cancer/Leo in the tropical Zodiac now and both Zodiacs when they merged into this ''divine (semantic) synchroncity'' , correspond to the days being lighter.

... unless you live in Australia. Or Botswana. Or Argentina. You get my drift...

I'm not sure I do if the intentional occult Synchroncity of the sign meanings seemingly emerged from a blending of Constellational imagery and Mythology with Northern Hemispheric Seasonal or Calendrical associations.

A sceptic might say why would this teleological Cosmos 'arrange' this at the dawn of (Western) Astrology. Because, 2 thousand years later we have unresolved and endless problematic, for both Zodiacal subscribers, discussions which only serves to increase the daily ridicule.

I'm a Pisces and when I go into houses with crystals and incense my initial response is to think about how to blow it up or murder the inhabitants. If you smoke quality fags, as I do, incense ruins the experience as do herbal teas and other manifestations of quasi hippy gumbo.

Maybe you need a change of zodiac system Nixx - or perhaps start smoking something else that chills you out a bit

I would say through a Psychological Lens as Pisces (Tropical) is a Water, therefore Rational sign, it is less likely to get involved in more ''New Age'' notions and potions such as crystals, incense and various ambient projected into talismans than the Fire/Air irrational 'away with the fairies' population.

Erm not to detract from this thread further, but I'm not sure what version of psychological astrology you studied that suggested that Water was a rational element and Air was irrational. In fact that's outright contradictory to everything I've read of modern psychological astrology. I believe you said on another forum that you were a follower of the CPA, but in the CPA Air and not Water is the rational element. In fact air and earth are generally considered rational with fire and water considered less rational.

This is off topic in a sidereal forum of course, but I do think that if you are to follow tropical astrology you have to be aware of the potential logical problems it raises for the southern hemisphere. Of course if the sidereal argument that the luminaries are NOT assigned to Leo and Cancer because of seasonal attributions is correct then of course this very same argument neatly solves the southern hemisphere problem for us - at least with regards rulerships. There are other problems of course.

Contact Deborah Houlding
| terms and conditions
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated